9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordered to restore the original status of the Company as if the name of the company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies - application allowed. - CA No. 59/252/HDB/2020 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2021 - M. B. Gosavi, Member (J) And Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Member (T) For the Appellant : Nandini S. Bilolikar, Hari Krishna, Apurva M. Gokhale and Karan B. Pandey, Advocates For the Respondents : B. Jithender, CGSC ORDER 1. This is a Company Application No. 59/252/HDB/2020 filed under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by Cdr. S.K. Nagesh, who is the Former Consultant and Operational Creditor of M/s. Safeway Realtors and Developers Private Limited (he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant that the Respondent No. 2 company was struck off by the ROC/Respondent No. 1. As the Applicant is not at the helm of the management of the Respondent No. 2 company, he is not aware of the reason for striking-off of Respondent No. 2 Company from the ROC. In this connection, the Adjudicating Authority directed vide its Order dated 18.12.2019 for restoration of the Respondent No. 2 company in the ROC. f. The Company filed its Annual Returns and Financial Statements upto 31.03.2014 and subsequently, failed to file the Financial Statements and Annual Returns with ROC. g. It is averred that ROC, Hyderabad as is being reflected in the Master Data of the Company has struck off the company. In the said Master Data, it is mentioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was served on the Company i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein and not the Appellant herein since he never held any managerial position in the Respondent No. 2 Company. ii. In Clarification to Point No. 2: The petition has already been served upon the Respondent No. 1 and the Petition sent to the Respondent No. 2 has been returned with the endorsement as LEFT and the same is attached. iii. In Clarification to Point No. 3: The Appellant herein is filing the present petition as an Operational Creditor and as such is not in possession of the Balance Sheets of the Respondent No. 2 for the past 3 financial years since he did not hold any managerial position in the Respondent No. 2 Company. iv. In Clarification to Point No. 4: The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. 9 of IBC, 2016 by duly complying with the statutory requirement and the said company petition was numbered as CP(IB) No. 263/9 of 2019 and is still pending before the Hon'ble NCLT . iv. The Respondent stated that in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Application may be considered on merits and appropriate orders may be passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal as deemed fit and proper. 4. The Applicant herein has filed an application bearing CP(IB) No. 263/9/HDB/2019 under Section 9 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which is pending before the Adjudicating Authority. As the Company is delisted by the ROC, the Applicant herein filed an application for restoration of the company's name in the Register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ROC; 4) The restoration of the Company's name is also subject to the payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) through online payment in www.mca.gov.in under miscellaneous fee by mentioning particulars as payment of cost for revival of Company pursuant to orders of Hon'ble NCLT in CA No. 59/252/HDB/2020 . 5) The Applicant is permitted to deliver a certified copy of this order to ROC within thirty days of the receipt of this order. 6) On such delivery and after duly complying with the above directions, the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad is directed to, on his office name and seal, publish the order in the official Gazette; 7) This order is confined to the violations, which ultimately l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
